Europe's existing monarchies happen to be societies which are among the most democratic, progressive and egalitarian around. Compare that to the history of the US over time, where any efforts towards equality and social justice often met and still meet with fierce opposition, or Latin American countries where only in recent times democracy and any effort to improve people's lives have been the norm, and those countries have a terrible history of abusing their own citizens' rights.

A monarchy is not determined by the vested interests of partisan politics, which is its greatest strength. Better someone who is above all party and other interests, than someone who can easily be bought with such.

Europe's existing monarchies happen to be societies which are among the most democratic, progressive and egalitarian around. Compare that to the history of the US over time, where any efforts towards equality and social justice often met and still meet with fierce opposition, or Latin American countries where only in recent times democracy and any effort to improve people's lives have been the norm, and those countries have a terrible history of abusing their own citizens' rights.

A monarchy is not determined by the vested interests of partisan politics, which is its greatest strength. Better someone who is above all party and other interests, than someone who can easily be bought with such.

I almost feel like you are describing a paradise when you talk about monarchies. I would not say that England's society or anyone elses for that matter has escaped such criticisms in regards to social changes. Every country in the world has struggled with social and political changes. England has fought many wars over internal struggles just like almost every nation on this planet. Nothing is perfect. We are all still changing and adapting to the world around us and our countries change with us.

As for the United State's history, not every act of social change is met with violence. For example: Dr. King actually preached a non-violent message for racial equality. Women won the right to vote not through violence but through peaceful protests. There is also nothing wrong with the act of demonstration as the U.S. was founded on freedom of speech. I will also say, that while it is not politically correct to write/say this, violence does sometimes get you good results. Hitler lost his power through the "violence" of WWII.

As this discussion is about monarchies though I would say that royals are not above politics. Prince Charles is known for his political views. Most royals may not publicly share their opinions but they still have them. In Belgium, for example, royals vote in that country on a political level. This act is confined to junior members but they still do it. How unpolitical is that? What the idea of a monarchy is and what it actually executes are two different things. In a modern age when people are more educated about politics is it necessary to have a monarchy? Could that position not filled by a President who would care out the ceremonial duties for the country while the Prime Minister rules the country?

If a nation wanted a purely ceremonial president, as opposed to an executive president, then surely there could be such a thing.

However, it seems to take enculturation from childhood into the proper ceremonial role. If a King or Queen is going to stand for the more ineffable, qualitative aspects of Good Behavior and Good Sense, for a nation (and exhibit those qualities at national ceremonial events), they do need to be properly "cast" for the role.

Some people who are not born royal would do a better job that some people who inherited their titles; on the other hand, many of the royals of the modern age understand that they need to fulfill this important ceremonial role, or they simply won't be perceived as good persons (and most people want to be good).

With the proper fulfillment of the ceremonial role comes real power. People do listen to people who are steady, dependable and exhibit good sense in public settings. If in addition, the royal person is educated and knowledgeable about the world, they can do a great deal in offering advice to the real politicians.

Real politicians live in an entirely different world than a monarch does, and the two points of view can be very helpful to each other.

I almost feel like you are describing a paradise when you talk about monarchies.

Definitely not, but it cannot be argued they have done best in terms of being law-governed

Quote:

As for the United State's history, not every act of social change is met with violence. For example: Dr. King actually preached a non-violent message for racial equality. Women won the right to vote not through violence but through peaceful protests. There is also nothing wrong with the act of demonstration as the U.S. was founded on freedom of speech. I will also say, that while it is not politically correct to write/say this, violence does sometimes get you good results. Hitler lost his power through the "violence" of WWII.

Violent or non-violent, those who sought to bring change- whether it was to abolish slavery, bring about racial equality and voting rights, or even attempt to bring greater social justice and social security to ordinary people (which European countries have done so successfully)- have always met with fierce resistance. And as you would know, the political rhetoric now has become ever more heated and bitter. And in Latin American countries, people have tried to resist such attempts with violence. Where do you think the worst inequities of social class and gender et al are?

A monarch is expected to look into the long term and not serve party interests. And more likely, is expected to be trained for the role from the start.

Definitely not, but it cannot be argued they have done best in terms of being law-governed

Violent or non-violent, those who sought to bring change- whether it was to abolish slavery, bring about racial equality and voting rights, or even attempt to bring greater social justice and social security to ordinary people (which European countries have done so successfully)- have always met with fierce resistance. And as you would know, the political rhetoric now has become ever more heated and bitter. And in Latin American countries, people have tried to resist such attempts with violence. Where do you think the worst inequities of social class and gender et al are?

A monarch is expected to look into the long term and not serve party interests. And more likely, is expected to be trained for the role from the start.

People meet with fierce resistance all over the world when going through social changes. The type of government doesn't matter. People are not going to stop and say because I have a King/Queen I will not fight or be bitter about the changes going on around me.

As for political rhetoric,that has gone on since government was founded regardless if the person heading the country overall was a monarch. As for were the greatest imbalance in social classes are, well I am sure you would attack democracies. Funny how in England given Kate's families money they are still considered middles class. However, no government is exempt from inequalities in social standing. We don't live in a utopia and I am grateful for that.

Monarchies don't exactly represent everybody. They are not known for being racially or religiously integrated. They also don't tend to marry that far out of their social standing. To me they are not representing the everyman despite what they may claim. One does not get to be King/Queen through hard work but by being born. The bloodline is paramount. So therefore everyone who does not have it is not fit to lead a country? While I admit that not everyone can be President at least everyone has the chance.

Whatever country who abolishes their monarchy next is the nation that has found a disconnect with them. They will find that they and the monarchy is at odds and they will deem fit that they don't want them anymore.

This is sad by the way because it entails the growing archaic, anachronistic and unuseful trappings of monarchies today. We don't see people in republics calling for the abolition of republics, for good reason too.

I think in a situation like this, that there's a monarchy in which it's institution and conventional wisdom is radically changed, and not just minor.

Bahrain for failing to understand the Arab spring and adapt accordingly.
Swaziland because the king keeps spending money on his family that should be spent on his people.
Belgium because politicians seem intend on breaking the country up. The RF seem to be the only Belgians in Belgium.

What issues are you seeing in Liechtenstein? The referendum was a couple of yrs ago and the princes side seems to have won. Havent seen any reports of protests in the streets of Vaduz. I know the Catholic Church isnt too happy about recent decisions regarding same sex unions but that is a legislative issue not really a princely one. I suppose if Hans Adam really gets fed up he can just sell the place to Bill Gates, lol.

This is just something I have heard last week and I DO NOT have all the information or facts so no one take my post as 100% the truth.
Apparently the people of Liechtenstein voted to legalize abortion and Prince Alois stated that if the law passes he will veto it; essentially ignoring the will of the people.

The referendum to legalise abortion was narrowly defeated and so the Prince won't have to use his powers to vetoe the peoples choice. But if it had gone the other way then he would have vetoed against pro abortion. Now not getting into the minefield of the morality of abortion, is it wise in a a European country for a heriditary prince to go against the wishes of his people? What is the point of having a referendum if the result is going to be ignored? If that sort of thing happens too often then I can see the elected government, and the peole, getting fed up with and deciding to abloish the monarchy, which they still have the right to do. In this case the HP avoided a showdown but if he keeps acting unilaterally?

If it happened too often, I could see a country rising up and saying enough is enough, but usually it doesn't seem to come to that. But I admit I don't know much about he monarchies that actually have power and how the majority of the citizens in those countries feel about them.

From what I have read Juan Carlos is respected for his role in transitioning the nation from a fascist dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy. Also his handling of the attempted coup and reaching out to all members of the political spectrum was admired in the early 1980s.
While I admire the Prince and Princess of the Asturias for their work ethic and busy schedule of events, I'm not sure if the admiration and good feeling toward JC will automatically transfer to his heir Felipe.